SFist: Workplace Stoners Can Be Fired, Says California Supreme Court

brody

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:01:36 -0800

One of the companies is called... Vinlux "Fine Wines" (35 Executive way Napa Ca 94558). They sell all kinds of alcohol from wine to Vodka. Funny how they pedal a mind altering product with no medical applications but are against prop 215. They fired me on my first day, after hearing other employees discussing their meth and crank usage I was pulled into the office and fired for being a prop 215 patient. It was hard not to laugh knowing I am most likely more qualified than all others there not to mention not a tweaker! Their loss. Alcohol and tobacco companies are probably scared of competition if it were to become fully legal.

hillrat

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:08:08 -0800

Some (publicly-traded) companies feel their shareholders want to own stock in a company with a "drug-free" environment. There's that and many companies that do business with the gov't (like mine, a massive defense/gov't contractor) have to comply with some sort of nonsense about a "drug free workplace".

wsanders

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:11:54 -0800

I wish all my co-workers were stoners. It would make life so much better. One of my best bosses ever, at an ad agency during the early 80s (think "Boogie Nights"), was a total stoner.

Dan Berkes

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:23:56 -0800

My favorite drug-testing story was having to pee in a cup as a prerequisite for working at Starbucks corporate in Seattle. I mean, seriously. They're the world's largest legal drug dealer. Not to mention that I wasn't doing anything remotely involved with public safety, unless there was some way to kill people by ramming a gift card into a wall at a high rate of speed.

Dan Berkes

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:19:26 -0800

masterdave

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:35:47 -0800

I don't smoke or use any recreational drugs or anything anymore... but I'll be damnned if I work for any place that does drug testing ever again. The jobs I've had that required drug testing were total bullshit jobs and they weren't worth my time. The ones that didn't... not so bad! It's none of anyone's business but mine what I do when I'm not at work and I think it's just total crap that people let employers take a shit on everyone's privacy. As long as I haven't been convicted of anything, i don't really think it's an employers business at all. I'm sure not going to submit to any sort of voluntary drug test ever again, and I wish we didn't have such conservative courts that seem to think it's NOT an invasion of privacy to insist on them.

Brock Keeling

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:25:38 -0800

that was just before cps came to the door, i think.

DJTennessee

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:13:46 -0800

I love when Brock posts his baby pictures.

mariconsoy

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:12:01 -0800

Brock, I am GREAT at writing resumes.

Dan Berkes

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:55:33 -0800

Seems like the legislature is pretty good with working on supporting Prop. 215 by adding/amending laws to address stuff like this. Hopefully they'll Do Something once again, though it'll probably take a year or so.

BeejW

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:16:21 -0800

Seriously though, I don't know. But lately friends of mine, especially the ones who work in fields don't require certain dexterities, are required to take drug tests. Very strange. Some (publicly-traded) companies feel their shareholders want to own stock in a company with a "drug-free" environment.

Brock Keeling

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:57:40 -0800

For starters, SFist. Har. Seriously though, I don't know. But lately friends of mine, especially the ones who work in fields don't require certain dexterities, are required to take drug tests. Very strange.

manys

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:53:54 -0800

Who are these companies that fire people for smoking pot "after work hours?"

Incandenza

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:50:37 -0800

Great quote from Bruce Mirkin in the LA times on this. He said it's "an absurdly narrow reading of the law." Oh, snap!